Renewing the Compact City

City Futures Research Centre June 2015 Renewing the Compact City Interim Report

Renewing the Compact City: Interim Report By Laurence Troy, Hazel Easthope, Bill Randolph, Simon Pinnegar City Futures Research Centre Faculty of Built Environment University of NSW www.cityfutures.net.au Published by: City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales First published June 2015 City Futures Research Centre 2015 Photograph provided by Laurence Troy Graphs produced by Laurence Troy Strata profile data contains information provided under licence from Land and Property Information (a Division of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation) This report is based on research funded by an Australian Research Council Grant No. LP130100400 and is being undertaken by the City Futures Research Centre at the UNSW Australia in partnership with UrbanGrowth NSW, Strata Community Australia (NSW), Australian College of Community Association Lawyers, The Owners Corporation Network of Australia and NSW Fair Trading. This report may be reproduced in part or whole by non-profit organisations and individuals for educational purposes, so long as the City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Australia, is acknowledged. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the UNSW Australia.

Renewing the Compact City Contents Contents Contents... ii List of Tables... iii List of Figures... v Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 2 Greater Sydney Statistical Area Profile... 3 Dwelling Profile... 3 Community Profile... 5 Time Series Profile... 10 Strata Scheme Profile... 12 Cancelled Strata Schemes... 18 Strata Renewal Feasibility Modelling... 23 Methodology... 24 Renewal Feasibility for Greater Sydney... 25 Profile and Case Study Data... 36 References... 39 City Futures 2015

Renewing the Compact City List of Tables List of Tables Table 1 Dwelling Structure of all occupied and unoccupied private dwellings in Greater Sydney... 3 Table 2 Tenure Profile of dwellings in Greater Sydney... 3 Table 3 Age Profile of persons in Greater Sydney... 5 Table 4 Household Profiles of dwellings in Greater Sydney... 6 Table 5 Household weekly income of dwellings in Greater Sydney... 8 Table 6 Labour force status of persons in Greater Sydney... 9 Table 7 Occupation of persons in Greater Sydney... 10 Table 8 Country of birth of persons in Greater Sydney... 10 Table 9 Population change 2006-2011... 11 Table 10 Change in employment 2006-2011... 11 Table 11 Change in household profile 2006-2011... 11 Table 12 Change in tenure of private sector higher density dwellings 2006-2011... 11 Table 13 Number of schemes by size and registration date for Greater Sydney... 12 Table 14 Strata schemes and units by date of registration for Greater Sydney... 12 Table 15 Strata unit sales values by year (Valuer General Database)... 15 Table 16 Strata unit sales values 2013 by scheme registration date (Valuer General Database)... 16 Table 17 Strata unit sales values 2013 by scheme size (Valuer General Database)... 17 Table 18 Strata unit sales values 2013 by unit size (APM)... 17 Table 19 Number of cancelled schemes by size and registration date for NSW... 18 Table 20 Number of cancelled schemes by registration date and cancellation date for NSW... 20 Table 21 Number of cancelled schemes by size and registration date for Greater Sydney... 21 Table 22 Number of cancelled schemes by registration date and cancellation date for Greater Sydney... 21 Table 23 Number of cancelled strata schemes 3 or more lots in size by registration and cancellation date for NSW... 21 Table 24 Floor space ratios and building heights... 25 Table 25 Renewal feasibility by outcome (percentages of row totals)... 32 City Futures 2015

Renewing the Compact City List of Tables Table 26 Proportion of strata schemes able to be redeveloped as a walkup flat according to scheme size category - Affordability scenario 1 (median household income as purchase price)... 35 Table 27 Proportion of strata schemes able to be redeveloped as a walkup flat according to scheme size category - Affordability scenario 2 (median household income as purchase price and less 20% profit margin)... 35 City Futures 2015

Renewing the Compact City List of Figures List of Figures Figure 1 Total flats, units and apartments at Statistical Area Level 1... 4 Figure 2 Owner occupancy rates at Statistical Area Level 1... 4 Figure 3 Proportion of population aged 65 years and over at Statistical Area Level 1... 6 Figure 4 Proportion of lone person households at Statistical Area Level 1... 7 Figure 5 Proportion of families with children at Statistical Area Level 1... 7 Figure 6 Proportion of households with income less than $1,499 per week at Statistical Area Level 1... 9 Figure 7 Location of strata schemes by size and registration date... 13 Figure 8 Volume of units registered by registration date excluding schemes of less than 3 lots... 14 Figure 9 Sydney median dwelling price by quarter... 15 Figure 10 2013 strata unit sales values by scheme registration date... 16 Figure 11 2013 strata unit sales values by scheme size... 17 Figure 12 Number of schemes cancelled by registration date for New South Wales... 19 Figure 13 Number of 3 or more lot schemes cancelled by registration date for New South Wales... 19 Figure 14 Location of terminated 3 or more lot strata schemes... 22 Figure 15 Location of terminated 3 or more lot strata schemes, central Sydney zone... 22 Figure 16 Walk up flat viability by category... 28 Figure 17 Accumulated walk up viability... 29 Figure 18 Accumulated high rise flat viability... 29 Figure 19 Accumulated viability categories for all renewal scenarios... 30 Figure 20 Proportion of schemes that could be renewed by SA2... 30 Figure 21 Number of schemes that could be renewed by SA2... 31 Figure 22 Number of strata schemes able to be redeveloped by existing scheme size category... 31 Figure 23 Feasible renewal with median household income setting sale prices (affordability scenario 1)... 33 Figure 24 Feasible renewal at affordable sale prices, less 20% profit margin (affordability scenario 2)... 34 City Futures 2015

Executive Summary The Conveyancing (Strata Titles) Act was introduced in 1961 in New South Wales (NSW) and created a mechanism for the vertical sub-division of multi-unit housing. Since then, residential strata dwellings account for an increasing share of the built environment with now over 27% of all dwellings in the Greater Sydney Statistical Area classified as a flat, unit or apartment. As many of these structures begin to age, and urban ambitions change, there is an emerging recognition that the particularities of strata title make period renewal of the built environment a complex undertaking. This report presents data from the first stage of a research project called Renewing the Compact City which aims to investigate economically viable and socially sustainable approaches to renewal of existing multi-unit strata titled residential development in Sydney. This first stage aimed to established the characteristics of strata schemes across Sydney, where, how big and how old they are, and also who lives in strata. The baseline data presented gives a comprehensive overview of the strata sector in Greater Sydney. Greater Sydney has the largest number of residential strata properties of Australian cities, with a total of 535,427 lots across 35,619 schemes that are larger than 2 lots, as of 31 December 2013. In earlier periods much of the strata development followed the main train lines, with the exception of the northern beaches area, however over time, strata development has become more common throughout the Sydney region. A basic profile of these lots shows that: Approximately one third (33.1%) of these schemes were registered before 1980. 20,742 (58.2%) of all schemes are between 3 and 10 lots in size. The tenure profile of flats, units and apartments in the Greater Sydney Statistical Area from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 census shows that: 31.4% of higher density dwellings are owner occupied 42.5% of higher density dwellings are privately rented 6.9% of higher density dwellings are public or community housing 19.2% of higher density dwellings are visitor only or unoccupied People who live in flats, units and apartments in Greater Sydney are more likely to be: 25-54 years old (31.3%) Lone person households (34.4%) In the labour force (73.7%) In professional occupations (45.5%) Born overseas (51.9%) However, these headline figures mask substantial regional variation of the concentrations of strata properties and the communities of people that live in strata, as demonstrated in Appendix A. Finally, this report presents the outcomes of a feasibility assessment of renewal potential of existing strata stock under current market conditions. Eastern suburb, north shore and locations near the ocean or harbour present the most favourable market conditions to make strata renewal feasible. The feasibility model reports that 15% of existing strata schemes could be feasibly redeveloped to 3 or less storeys. However, when factoring in dwelling prices based on median incomes of local households, less than 3% of existing strata could be feasibly redeveloped at levels considered affordable to local households. City Futures 2015 1

Introduction Across Australia, city planners are focusing on urban renewal as a major driver for change both to provide additional housing for growing urban populations and to implement widely accepted principles of sustainability. The dominant model involves renewal of existing urban areas along transport corridors and hubs, particularly in and around activity concentrations such as existing town centres. The compact city building up rather than building out has become the planning orthodoxy of the 21st century in most of the world (Forster, 2006; OECD, 2012). Over a long period, efforts to implement urban consolidation and densification policies have focused on renewal of former industrial land often located in central locations. As the availability of these sites slowly diminish, there is an emerging recognition that implementing these policies in areas identified for renewal will require a reworking of existing residential areas in Sydney (Easthope et al., 2013). While there have always been complications in the implementation of major urban renewal plans related to the often fragmented ownership structure of urban land and competing claims over its use, renewal of existing strata titled housing enters new, and largely untested, territory (Easthope et al., 2013). Not only do renewal plans face the challenges of complex horizontal land subdivisions, strata title has effectively created a further vertical subdivision on each land parcel. Given the role multi-unit housing plays within the Sydney housing market, the potential social and economic impacts are significant. This report provides base line information identifying the location, scale, market value, and social profile of the strata sector across greater metropolitan Sydney. This information was used to inform later stages of the project, including a community survey of strata residents and owners across the greater Sydney metropolitan area, and stakeholder and community scenario testing workshops. The community workshops will be based in six different locations across Sydney. Each location is identified and profiled in this report. Results from the community survey and stakeholder and community workshops will be published in a subsequent report. This report is split into three sections. The first section provides an overview of strata development, population profile and market value across the Greater Sydney Statistical Area. The second section models the feasibility of redeveloping strata schemes under current market conditions. The final section details the data sources used to build the Greater Sydney and case study profiles and highlights some of the limitations and issues related to the use of this data. This study was undertaken by researchers at the University of New South Wales funded under the Australian Research Council Linkage grant programme (ARC Linkage LP130100400) with industry partners, including UrbanGrowth NSW, Strata Community Australia NSW, Australian College of Community Association Lawyers, the Owners Corporation Network of Australia and NSW Fair Trading. City Futures 2015 2

Greater Sydney Statistical Area Profile This section profiles various characteristics of the strata units and the population within strata units across the Greater Sydney Area. It is separated into three parts which reflect the different data sources used to compile the figures. The first two parts, dwelling profile and community profile, are based on an analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011 census of population and housing and provide an overview of the scale, structure, tenure and location of flats, units and apartments (henceforth higher density dwellings) across Sydney and the population that live in these dwelling types. The third part profiles different attributes of strata schemes across Sydney based on records from NSW Land and Property Information (LPI). All figures reported are based on the Greater Sydney Statistical Area geography as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011. Dwelling Profile Sydney has the highest proportion of private sector higher density housing of Australia s largest cities and these dwellings account for approximately 27.4% (see Table 1) of all dwellings across Sydney. Unoccupied dwellings have been included in these figures as they account for 6.1% of all dwellings and 8.9% of flats, units and apartments across Sydney (see Table 2). While there are significant geographical concentrations of higher density dwellings in central Sydney, Eastern suburbs, North Sydney, Parramatta, and along the northern rail corridor, there is a wide distribution of this form of housing across the metropolitan area, see Figure 1. Table 1 Dwelling Structure of all occupied and unoccupied private dwellings in Greater Sydney Higher Density Dwellings Other Dwellings 468,950 27.4% 1,241,714 72.6% Note: Includes dwellings in all tenure and landlord categories The tenure profile of these dwellings differs from the remainder of the housing market with only 31.4% of flats, units and apartments being owner occupied (outright or with a mortgage) compared with 68.2% of other dwelling types (see Table 2). Dwellings that are privately rented, vacant or fit into other tenure categories (including visitor only households) represent some form of investment ownership and account for approximately 61.7% of the total stock of high density dwellings, compared with 28% for the balance of dwellings in Greater Sydney. There are, however, some zones where there are concentrations of owner occupier rates of above 50% (see Figure 2). Table 2 Tenure Profile of dwellings in Greater Sydney Higher Density Dwellings Balance of Greater Sydney Owned outright 59,377 12.7% 403,361 32.5% Owned with a mortgage 87,876 18.7% 443,195 35.7% Private rental 199,133 42.5% 205,809 16.6% Social housing 32,272 6.9% 46,881 3.8% Other tenures (including Visitor only) 48,443 10.3% 66,267 5.3% Unoccupied 41,843 8.9% 76,208 6.1% Total 468,944 100% 1,241,721 100% Investor Owned* 289,419 61.7% 348,284 28.0% * Includes Private rental, Other tenures and Unoccupied categories City Futures 2015 3

Figure 1 Total flats, units and apartments at Statistical Area Level 1 Figure 2 Owner occupancy rates at Statistical Area Level 1 City Futures 2015 4

Community Profile All figures are derived from place of enumeration datasets to enable dwelling characteristics to be crosstabulated with other population and housing variables. Unless indicated otherwise, figures are based on population in private sector housing and therefore exclude people living in state owned housing or housing rented through community or other housing agencies. This enables a point of comparison between private sector higher density dwellings and population living in all other dwellings without including various social housing categories into the figures for the balance of Sydney. The combination of using enumeration profiles and tenure variables means the total numbers of people for Greater Sydney does not reflect the total population for that region. The population living in private high density housing is concentrated in the 25 to 34 and 35 to 54 age cohorts, representing approximately 59% of the total population compared to 42% of the population living in other types of housing in Greater Sydney, while under 15 and over 65 cohorts are underrepresented in higher density housing compared with the balance of Sydney (see Table 3). These aggregate figures mask significant regional variation in distribution of particular age cohorts living in higher density dwellings. Figure 3 shows the distribution of persons in high density dwellings aged 65 and over across the metropolitan area, showing higher concentrations in eastern harbour suburbs, Mosman and Cremorne, along the Pacific Highway/Northern rail line corridor, and the far northern beaches. Differences in age profiles are also reflected in household composition. Single family households with children represent 28% of all households compared with 55.5% for the balance of households in other dwellings in Greater Sydney. Conversely lone person households account for 34.4% of all dwellings in higher density development compared with 15.5% for the balance in Greater Sydney. Again, spatial variation in household composition in higher density dwellings (see Figure 4 and Figure 5) reveals concentrations of lone person households in the inner west, central Sydney and north shore areas, while families with children show significant concentrations in western suburbs, specifically Canterbury, Auburn, Parramatta, Fairfield and Liverpool local government areas. Table 3 Age Profile of persons in Greater Sydney Higher Density Dwellings Balance of Greater Sydney Under 15 93,437 12.9% 673,652 21.5% 15-24 90,343 12.5% 420,300 13.4% 25-34 226,876 31.3% 378,974 12.1% 35-54 197,665 27.3% 921,492 29.4% 55-64 57,017 7.9% 363,156 11.6% 65 and older 59,733 8.2% 379,330 12.1% Total 725,071 100% 3,136,904 100% City Futures 2015 5

Figure 3 Proportion of population aged 65 years and over at Statistical Area Level 1 Table 4 Household Profiles of dwellings in Greater Sydney Higher Density Dwellings Balance of Greater Sydney Family Households (with Children) 95,453 28.0% 581,251 55.5% Family Households (without Children) 93,184 27.3% 241,854 23.1% Multiple Family Households 3,265 1.0% 33,019 3.2% Lone Person Households 117,258 34.4% 162,885 15.5% Group Households 31,598 9.3% 28,578 2.7% Total 340,758 100% 1,047,587 100% Note: Excludes visitor only households and other non-classifiable households. City Futures 2015 6

Figure 4 Proportion of lone person households at Statistical Area Level 1 Figure 5 Proportion of families with children at Statistical Area Level 1 City Futures 2015 7

The patterns for household income in higher density dwellings are broadly similar to the balance of Greater Sydney however there is slight over representation in lower income categories and under representation in the high income categories amongst people living in higher density housing, see Table 5. As a point of comparison, the median weekly household income for the Greater Sydney statistical area is $1,447. The spatial variation of household income broadly reflects patterns of income distribution across the broader Sydney population. Households in lower income bands are generally concentrated in the inner west, southern and western suburbs, see Figure 6. Low income households overlap with family households with children in the Liverpool to Fairfield and Lakemba to Campsie areas. Figures for the balance of Sydney in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 include persons in all other dwelling and tenure categories, including those living in higher density public and community housing. This is due to changes to Australian Bureau of Statistics Table Builder not allowing cross tabulations between dwellings and some population profile categories. Public and community housing accounts for 4.97% of total dwellings in Greater Sydney so will have limited impact on the distribution of figures for the balance of Sydney. The unemployment rate for people living in higher density dwellings is marginally higher than that for the balance of Greater Sydney, being 6% and 5.7% respectively, see Table 6. However the level of full time employment, 67.9%, and labour force participation rate, 73.7%, are considerably higher in higher density dwellings than for the balance of Sydney. The occupation profile (see Table 7) also reveals that 32.2% of people in higher density dwellings are employed in professional occupations compared with 23.8% for the remainder of Sydney. Sydney has long been recognised as having a diverse ethnic profile however there are some clear differences between the population living in higher density properties and the balance of the population in Greater Sydney. Notably, 48.1% of higher density dwelling residents were born in the Oceania region (includes Australia, New Zealand, Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia) compared with 65.9% for Greater Sydney, see Table 8. People born on the Asian continent (North-East Asia, Southern and Central Asia and South-East Asia) account for 30.8% of the total population living in higher density dwellings, compared to 11.5% for the balance of the population in Greater Sydney. Table 5 Household weekly income of dwellings in Greater Sydney Higher Density Dwellings Balance of Greater Sydney No or Nil Income 7,829 2.3% 9,317 0.9% Under A$400 25,721 7.4% 70,234 6.7% A$400-799 48,789 14.1% 143,653 13.6% A$800-1499 85,961 24.8% 215,857 20.5% A$1500-2499 72,099 20.8% 222,225 21.1% A$2500-3999 63,378 18.3% 211,695 20.1% A$4000 and over 14,794 4.3% 67,823 6.4% Other* 27,820 8.0% 112,342 10.7% Total 346,391 100% 1,053,146 100% *Includes households with negative income, partial income stated, all income not stated and not applicable City Futures 2015 8

Figure 6 Proportion of households with income less than $1,499 per week at Statistical Area Level 1 Table 6 Labour force status of persons in Greater Sydney Higher Density Dwellings Balance of Greater Sydney Employed Full Time* 309,884 67.9% 1,048,308 60.5% Employed Part Time* 99,261 21.7% 485,513 28.0% Employed Away From Work* 20,047 4.4% 100,253 5.8% Unemployed/Unemployment Rate* 27,437 6.0% 98,149 5.7% Not in Labour Force /Participation Rate 162,760 73.7% 1,196,846 59.1% *Percentage of total labour force City Futures 2015 9

Table 7 Occupation of persons in Greater Sydney Higher Density Dwellings Balance of Greater Sydney Managers 57,099 13.3% 216,818 13.3% Professionals 138,083 32.2% 388,480 23.8% Technicians and Trades Workers 43,193 10.1% 208,278 12.7% Community and Personal Service Workers 38,271 8.9% 143,789 8.8% Clerical and Administrative Workers 64,018 14.9% 269,417 16.5% Sales Workers 36,037 8.4% 149,913 9.2% Machinery Operators and Drivers 17,370 4.0% 100,768 6.2% Labourers 27,255 6.4% 124,069 7.6% Inadequately Described or Not Stated 7,871 1.8% 32,542 2.0% Note: Percentage of persons in all occupations excluding Not Applicable and Overseas Visitor categories Table 8 Country of birth of persons in Greater Sydney Higher Density Dwellings Balance of Greater Sydney Oceania and Antarctica 342,291 48.1% 2,425,208 65.9% North-West Europe 50,278 7.1% 201,300 5.5% Southern and Eastern Europe 29,339 4.1% 160,554 4.4% North Africa and the Middle East 26,038 3.7% 127,345 3.5% South-East Asia 53,404 7.5% 177,097 4.8% North-East Asia 96,166 13.5% 150,134 4.1% Southern and Central Asia 69,451 9.8% 94,937 2.6% Americas 21,248 3.0% 52,705 1.4% Sub-Saharan Africa 13,070 1.8% 43,065 1.2% Others/Not Stated 10,757 1.5% 247,286 6.7% Time Series Profile The total number of people living in higher density dwellings increased in all age cohorts across the census period with the exception of the 15-24 and over 65 age cohorts, see Table 9. The 25 to 34 age cohort showed the largest increase in share of the population rising from 28.9% in 2006 to 31.3% in 2011. This change is reflected in the household profile for Greater Sydney which saw an increase in the proportion of one family households from 51.0% in 2006 to 55.4% in 2011, see Table 11. The total number and share of lone person households decreased from 39.1% to 34.4% across this period. The proportion of dwellings being owner occupied also increased across the census period from 39.7% to 42.5%, see Table 12. City Futures 2015 10

Table 9 Population change 2006-2011 2006 2011 Under 15 82,935 11.9% 93,437 12.9% 15-24 102,037 14.6% 90,343 12.5% 25-34 202,587 28.9% 226,876 31.3% 35-54 189,967 27.1% 197,665 27.3% 55-64 52,974 7.6% 57,017 7.9% 65 and older 69,297 9.9% 59,733 8.2% Total Population 699,797 100.0% 725,071 100% Table 10 Change in employment 2006-2011 2006 2011 Employed 359,182 94.1% 429,192 94.0% Unemployed 22,481 5.9% 27,437 6.0% Not in Labour Force/Participation Rate 144,057 61.9% 162,760 73.7% Table 11 Change in household profile 2006-2011 2006 2011 One family household 157,586 51.0% 188,637 55.4% Multi-family Household 1,708 0.6% 3,265 1.0% Lone person household 121,058 39.1% 117,258 34.4% Group household 28,903 9.3% 31,598 9.3% Note: Excludes visitor only households and other non-classifiable households. Table 12 Change in tenure of private sector higher density dwellings 2006-2011 2006 2011 Fully owned 53,827 18.0% 59,382 17.1% Being purchased 64,723 21.7% 87,884 25.4% Rented 179,919 60.3% 199,139 57.5% Occupied Dwellings 298,469 100% 346,405 100% Note: Excludes dwellings rented through a state housing agency, housing co-operatives, community and church groups and other tenure categories. City Futures 2015 11

Strata Scheme Profile Table 13 shows the distribution of strata schemes by size and date of registration with more than 20,000 of the 35,000 residential strata schemes having 10 or less lots. When considering registration dates of schemes, there have been relatively consistent numbers of schemes in the 3-20 lots categories being registered in each of the listed decades. The rate of registration of large schemes of over 100 lots has been increasing since strata legislation was introduced in the early 1960s. Table 14 provides an overview of the number of schemes and units registered in each 10 year period. The average scheme size has increased significantly in the last decade or so to 21 lots per scheme following a period of thirty years when the average schemes size stayed relatively stable at around 13 lots per scheme. Figure 7 shows the location and size of strata schemes by the decade in which they were registered. There is a clear trend towards increasing numbers of strata schemes being developed in each decade reflective of Sydney s growth trajectory and increasing emphasis on this form of housing through urban policy, as expressed in local planning policies. In earlier periods much of the strata development followed the main train lines, with the exception of the northern beaches area, however over time, strata development has become more common throughout the Sydney region. When the volume of schemes and lot registrations is broken down into smaller time scales a pattern is revealed. Figure 8 shows the volume of lots and schemes registered in five year bands and shows a clear cyclical pattern which likely reflects key events in relation to investment in the residential property market. The downturns indicated during the 1985-1989 and 2005-2009 periods coincide with major international financial crises. Relatively higher rates of scheme registration peaking in the early 1970s reflects both the increasing rates of unit construction and the conversion of properties under company title to strata title. Table 13 Number of schemes by size and registration date for Greater Sydney Scheme Size Registration Date 3-5 Lots 6-10 Lots 11-20 Lots 21-50 Lots 51-100 Lots 100+ Lots Total 1961-1969 313 1,297 1,440 788 92 12 3,942 1970-1979 1,205 2,754 2,689 1,072 107 25 7,852 1980-1989 1,505 2,105 1,278 509 97 36 5,530 1990-1999 2,833 2,562 1,605 757 186 122 8,065 2000-2009 2,611 2,513 1,650 1,055 377 221 8,427 2010-2013 573 471 329 259 105 66 1,803 Total 9,040 11,702 8,991 4,440 964 482 35,619 Table 14 Strata schemes and units by date of registration for Greater Sydney (EXCLUDING 1 AND 2 LOT SCHEMES) Pre-1969 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09 2010-2013 Total Schemes 3,942 7,852 5,530 8,065 8,427 1,803 35,619 Lots 62,363 107,351 67,743 110,983 148,526 38,461 535,427 Av. lots per scheme 15.8 13.7 12.3 13.8 17.6 21.3 15.0 City Futures 2015 12

Figure 7 Location of strata schemes by size and registration date City Futures 2015 13

Number of Units Volume of strata scheme registrations by year for Greater Sydney (3 or more lot schemes) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Units Schemes 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 Number of Schemes 0 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Year of Registration 0 Figure 8 Volume of units registered by registration date excluding schemes of less than 3 lots Strata sales Figure 9 shows the median dwelling price by quarter for units and houses from 2003 to 2014 for Greater Sydney. Prices remained relative stable between 2003 and 2009 and then experienced an upward trend to 2014. Table 15 shows the distribution of sale values by year from 2009 to 2013. Prices increased over this period, with the greatest increase occurring between 2011 and 2013. 2009 coincides with the later stages of the financial crisis, also reflected by the lower numbers of sales occurring during this period. Table 16 and Figure 10 show sale value quartiles and number of sales by registration date of the strata scheme for 2013. Schemes registered after 2009 achieved the highest sale values, which likely reflect the new condition of the strata lots being sold. Schemes registered during the 1980s had the lowest median and lower quartile sale values. Schemes that were registered prior to 1970, representing the oldest apartment stock, achieved sale values similar to schemes registered during the 2000-2009 period. The higher values achieved by pre-1970 stock partly reflects their location being concentrated in eastern parts of Sydney (see Figure 7). Table 17 shows sales values by scheme size and indicates that small (3-5 lot) schemes have achieved higher sale values, most likely reflecting the higher proportion of these being town house or villa house developments. Mid-size schemes achieved both the lowest and smaller range of sales values. The very large schemes (over 100 lots) recorded the second highest median sale values, which likely reflects higher values achieved by newer apartments, most likely associated with their location in central city and higher values areas. Table 18 shows sale values by number of bedrooms, and as could be expected, shows a clear increase in sale value with apartment size. The distribution of sales also shows that there is a greater range of values achieved for larger apartments than for smaller apartments. City Futures 2015 14

Some caution is needed when comparing figures derived from Australian Property Monitor data and Valuer General s data as the slightly different date variables are used to establish calendar year samples. As described above in the Case Study Profile Data section, the APM dataset will vary from Valuer General derived distribution of values because different date attributes have been used to create the time period subsets. APM uses an event date criterion which is similar, but not identical to contract date. The result is that the APM data will include some sales where settlement occurred outside the 2013 and 2011 calendar years. $800 ABS Sydney Median Price by Quarter $700 Median Price ($'000) $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year Attached Dwelling Established House Figure 9 Sydney median dwelling price by quarter (source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014) Table 15 Strata unit sales values by year (Valuer General Database) Year 2009 2011 2013 Lower Quartile $326,500 $355,000 $390,000 Median $429,000 $465,000 $520,000 Upper Quartile $555,000 $595,000 $675,000 Number of Sales 26,703 37,456 35,440 Note: excludes 1 and 2 lot schemes City Futures 2015 15

Table 16 Strata unit sales values 2013 by scheme registration date (Valuer General Database) Scheme Registration Date Pre-1970 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09 2010-13 All Lower Quartile $415,000 $350,000 $315,000 $360,000 $395,000 $490,000 $390,000 Median $520,000 $480,000 $454,000 $490,000 $521,000 $610,000 $520,000 Upper Quartile $660,000 $624,250 $640,000 $666,775 $670,000 $755,000 $675,000 Number of Sales 3,532 6,293 3,599 5,930 10,353 5,733 35,440 Note: excludes 1 and 2 lot schemes $1,200 2013 Strata Unit Sales Values 3rd Quartile Range 2nd Quartile Range $1,000 Sales Value (Thousands) $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 1961-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2013 Strata Scheme Registration Date Figure 10 2013 strata unit sales values by scheme registration date City Futures 2015 16

Table 17 Strata unit sales values 2013 by scheme size (Valuer General Database) Scheme Size 3 to 5 Lots 6 to 10 Lots 11 to 20 Lots21 to 50 Lots51 to 100 Lots 101+ Lots All Lower Quartile $425,000 $366,000 $373,000 $385,000 $410,000 $462,000 $390,000 Median $605,000 $500,000 $485,000 $498,000 $540,000 $598,888 $520,000 Upper Quartile $815,500 $675,000 $625,000 $645,775 $690,000 $736,000 $675,000 Number of Sales 2,414 6,059 8,634 9,056 4,604 4,673 35,440 $1,600 $1,400 2013 Strata Unit Sales 3rd Quartile Range 2nd Quartile Range Sales Value (Thousands) $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 3 to 5 Lots 6 to 10 Lots 11 to 20 Lots 21 to 50 Lots 51 to 100 Lots 101+ Lots Strata Scheme Size Figure 11 2013 strata unit sales values by scheme size Table 18 Strata unit sales values 2013 by unit size (APM) 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed or more Lower Quartile $375,000 $395,000 $519,500 $625,000 Median $450,000 $518,000 $715,000 $755,000 Upper Quartile $530,013 $650,000 $985,000 $1,253,750 Number of Sales 4,258 14,702 3,977 450 Note: records attributed with null bed values have been excluded because it is not possible to distinguish between those that reflect an incomplete record and those that reflect studio apartments. Null values account for 40% of sale records for 2013. City Futures 2015 17

Cancelled Strata Schemes The figures presented below on cancelled or terminated strata schemes have been split into two sections based on two different data extracts with different levels of information. The first extract represents all strata schemes that have been cancelled across New South Wales and only includes size of scheme and the date at which the scheme was registered (see Table 19), as it was not possible to match cancellation dates or addresses to all cancelled schemes. This table includes all types of land uses and so may include non-residential strata. Approximately 44% (374) of all schemes terminated were 1-2 lot schemes while 3-5 lot schemes account for a further 30%. Only 30 (3.6%) of all cancelled schemes were larger than 20 lots. Figure 12 shows the number of schemes cancelled by registration date and Figure 13 excludes all schemes with fewer than 3 lots. Both Figures suggest that the majority of schemes cancelled were registered between 1976 and 1993. This does not give an indication of the age of each when they were cancelled, however does indicate a typology of building that has been the subject of more cancellation events. Table 19 Number of cancelled schemes by size and registration date for NSW Registration Date Scheme Size 1-2 Lots 3-5 Lots 6-10 Lots 11-20 Lots 21-50 Lots 51-100 Lots 100+ Lots Total 1961-1969 22 13 17 5 57 1970-1979 61 57 28 17 3 166 1980-1989 120 95 55 14 8 3 295 1990-1999 146 74 26 9 7 2 2 266 2000-2009 25 9 11 1 1 1 2 50 2010-2013 1 1 2 Total 374 248 137 47 20 6 4 836 City Futures 2015 18

60 Cancelled Strata Schemes ALL 50 Number of Schemes 40 30 20 10 0 Year of Registration Figure 12 Number of schemes cancelled by registration date for New South Wales 60 Cancelled Strata Schemes 3 or more lots 50 Number of Schemes 40 30 20 10 0 Year of Registration Figure 13 Number of 3 or more lot schemes cancelled by registration date for New South Wales City Futures 2015 19

The second data extract includes scheme address and cancellation dates with each of the records, however, as indicated previously we were not able to match a number of records to addresses. Of the 836 schemes that have been cancelled in NSW only 512 (62%) have address information recorded, and only 479 have a cancellation date recorded. On closer inspection of the data, there are no cancellation dates listed occurring before 2001. That there is no data before this date as opposed to limited data suggests that the LPI database either did not record this information prior to 2001, or more likely that there are problems creating links in the database to allow this information to be extracted systematically for all cancelled strata schemes. Table 21 shows a summary of the two data sets with registration date and cancellation shown where possible. Table 21 shows that 1 or 2 lot schemes account for just under half (150) of schemes terminated within Greater Sydney and only 14 (4.3%) out of 326 schemes were 21 lots or greater. Table 22 provides a summary of schemes that have been terminated comparing registration date with termination date. As reflected in Figure 13, above, a higher proportion of all terminated strata schemes were those that had been registered in the 1970s to 1990s, peaking in the decade of the 1980s. Figure 14 shows the location of terminated strata schemes of 3 or more lots in the Sydney region. While schemes have been terminated in a wide variety of locations, there are concentrations in coastal and harbour locations, including Manly, North Sydney, along the harbour between Sydney CBD and Rushcutters Bay, Bondi and Cronulla, see Figure 15. Table 24 shows the number of strata schemes of 3 or more lots that have been cancelled across NSW by registration and cancellation dates. Over half of the 3 or more lot schemes have been cancelled since 2000, with 97 being cancelled in the four years 2010 to 2013 alone. In many ways this is to be expected because as schemes age, cancellations should occur in higher numbers. It is also likely that in earlier periods there were a significant number of development opportunities on parcels of land occupied by single houses or under single title, which represent both easier and less expensive propositions. This is important because it demonstrates that although they are not large numbers, cancellation is happening to some degree under the current legislative framework. Table 20 Number of cancelled schemes by registration date and cancellation date for NSW Cancellation Date Registration Date 2000-2009 2010-2013 ND Total 1961-1969 18 14 25 57 1970-1979 62 26 78 166 1980-1989 98 46 151 295 1990-1999 109 56 101 266 2000-2009 26 24 0 50 ND 2 2 Total 313 166 357 836 Of the 512 schemes where address information is available, 326 are located within the Greater Sydney Statistical Area. City Futures 2015 20

Table 21 Number of cancelled schemes by size and registration date for Greater Sydney Registration Date 1 to 2 Lots 3 to 5 Lots 6 to 10 Lots Scheme Size 11 to 20 Lots 21 to 50 Lots 51 to 100 Lots 101+ Lots Total 1961-1969 10 9 10 2 31 1970-1979 31 24 15 3 1 74 1980-1989 41 29 21 6 3 1 101 1990-1999 54 28 9 3 3 2 99 2000-2009 14 3 1 1 2 21 Total 150 93 55 14 8 4 2 326 Table 22 Number of cancelled schemes by registration date and cancellation date for Greater Sydney Cancellation Date Registration Date 2000-2009 2010-2013 ND Total 1961-1969 14 13 4 31 1970-1979 49 20 5 74 1980-1989 65 31 5 101 1990-1999 60 34 5 99 2000-2009 14 7 21 Total 202 105 19 326 Table 23 Number of cancelled strata schemes 3 or more lots in size by registration and cancellation date for NSW Cancellation Date Registration Date 2000-2009 2010-2013 ND Total 1961-1969 11 11 13 35 1970-1979 35 17 53 105 1980-1989 43 30 102 175 1990-1999 47 26 47 120 2000-2009 11 13 1 25 ND 2 2 Total 147 97 218 462 City Futures 2015 21

Figure 14 Location of terminated 3 or more lot strata schemes Figure 15 Location of terminated 3 or more lot strata schemes, central Sydney zone City Futures 2015 22

Strata Renewal Feasibility Modelling The data presented in the first three sections outlines the spatial and temporal distribution, market characteristics and social profile of strata schemes across the Greater Sydney region. In this section, this data is used as a basis for understanding the feasibility of renewing strata schemes in the current market context. While there are many mechanisms through which strata schemes may be redeveloped, in the absence of alternatives renewal activity, if it occurs, will happen largely through private sector led development. The specific ownership complexities of strata schemes make reaching unanimous agreement to terminate a scheme and begin a redevelopment process very difficult. However even if agreement can be reached, there remains a number of other market barriers to renewal due to what is assumed to be the high costs of redeveloping strata schemes compared with redeveloping single house lots into strata. The particular cost dynamics of strata termination and renewal pose significant challenges that have not been very well understood to date. Other research has noted the costs and geographically variable housing market conditions create significant barriers to renewal of existing strata in much of Sydney (Pinnegar & Randolph, 2012). This previous modelling focused on specific areas in Western Sydney where redevelopment of older strata units was seen as desirable on a number of grounds, however was generally understood as not possible within the current market framework. This previous modelling focused on Cabramatta in Sydney s west, and found the costs of redevelopment compared with the sale values the local market supported at the time, meant that redeveloping older schemes would not be financially viable. The modelling presented in this report extends the previous work undertaken by Pinnegar & Randolph (2012) by estimating the feasibility of renewing existing strata schemes across the Greater Sydney region. Feasibility of renewal will be contingent on a number of factors including the buyout costs of existing development, the property market dynamics in different parts of Sydney, the characteristics of the specific parcels of land and the type of development the planning context supports. There are many development controls that will affect apartment yield on each site, however maximum building heights and floor space ratios (FSR) have the most baring on development potential as they set out the bulk and scale that is permissible on each site. These vary across local government areas and are specified in Local Environment Plans (LEP). There are a number of holes in the digital datasets representing FSR and building heights across Sydney, making use of this as a key data layer problematic. To partially overcome this data deficiency, the feasibility model sets out answer a slightly different question. Instead of asking where development is feasible based on the above criteria, the model aims to understand how many units would need to be constructed on each site for development to be feasible. Once this has been established, a judgement can be made about whether this would be permissible under the current planning framework, or whether the planning framework would need to change to make renewal more feasible. Given that part of the task here is to understand how renewal can feasibly occur, this approach will allow us to better understand the mechanisms or policy levers that may be required to create the conditions necessary for renewal. Much of urban renewal to date (both market led and Government led) relies on a gentrification process or the intensification of land uses to create cost differentials between existing and new development. Gentrification is well known to be part of a process driving socio-spatial inequalities in many cities, which raises questions about the long term social sustainability of a market based approach to urban renewal. It is on this basis that the second part of the modelling aims to investigate the affordability dynamics of renewal by testing the feasibility of development if dwellings are provided at price points affordable to households in the local area. The first section below briefly outlines the methodology for conducting the feasibility assessment. The second section presents an analysis of outcomes at the Greater Sydney level. Finer grained results are presented for each of the case study areas in Appendix A. City Futures 2015 23

Methodology This section provides an overview of the feasibility assessment methodology. A more detailed explanation can be found in Appendix B. The feasibility model was based on cadastral parcel boundaries of strata titled land parcels across Greater Sydney. Each cadastral lot was attributed with basic information about the existing strata development including land area of the parcel, number of strata lots, and the year of registration, which acts as a proxy for building age. Valuer General sales data, construction costs guidelines published in Rawlinsons Construction Costs Guide (Rawlinsons, 2014) and SEPP 65 apartment design guidelines were used to inform the model. It was not possible to know the particular configuration of unit sizes for existing development, so a 2 bedroom costs and sale average has been assumed across the model. The model can be broadly separated into three parts. First was to establish an estimate of the buyout cost for the existing strata development based on aggregated sales figures of strata units at SA2 level. The second component involved estimating the development costs for building new units as either walk up flat or high rise development at three different qualities, basic, medium and high standard (6 different scenarios). Finally, sale proceeds were based on different price points of new strata development at SA2 level. It was assumed throughout the modelling that a feasible scenario is one where there is a 20% profit margin across all costs associated with the development. Once a relationship between the component parts of a feasibility equation can be established (i.e. where sale proceeds are greater than buyout costs + development costs), the number of new units required to reach a feasible outcome can be calculated. Using this number of new units, floor space ratios are based on flat sizes and site coverage listed in the SEPP 65 guidelines and land area of each strata land parcel. Using the same site coverage variable, an estimate of building height can be established assuming each building level equates to roughly 3 metres. Traffic Light Scenarios This process broadly establishes the level of development required for renewal to be feasible under current market conditions, and the next step is to then decide what planning arrangements would be needed for renewal to be possible. Approaching it this way enables us to understand under what conditions renewal could occur. FSR outcomes were categorised based on a scale of possibility, with low FSRs being possible and high FSRs not possible, as summarised below and in Table 24. 1. Yes - Permissible; 2. Maybe - Potentially permissible depending on variations in some of the constraints included in the FSR and Building Height calculations, such as increasing building footprint from 35% up to a maximum of 80%; 3. No - Not likely due to the very high FSR and therefore building heights returned as a result of the initial costs analysis; or 4. N/A - When the construction costs per unit are higher than the potential sale price at that price point within the area, then the feasibility formula will return a negative value. This indicates that regardless of buyout cost and underlying planning restrictions, it would not be possible reach a viable redevelopment scenario. City Futures 2015 24

Table 24 Floor space ratios and building heights Yes Maybe No Walk Up Flat FSR Up to 1:1 Between 1:1 and 2:1 Above 2:1 Height (stories) 3 3-4 N/A* High Rise Flat FSR Up to 2.5:1 Between 2.5:1 and 3.5:1 Above 3.5:1 Height (stories) Up to 8 8-13 Above 13 * It would cease to be a walk up flat if FSR reached 2:1 even if site coverage approached 100% as it would require a building of 4 or more storeys, which would then place it in Rawlinsons Construction Cost category of High Rise because of the additional costs of building over four stories. Affordability Scenario 1 The above analysis assumes a sale price based on the current market in each SA2, however these are often considered unaffordable to first time purchasers. The first affordability scenario aims to estimate the number of schemes that could be feasibly redeveloped if the sale value is set at an affordable level relative to median household incomes in each SA2 based on 2011 census data. Affordability Scenario 2 The second affordability scenario assumes the same affordable sale price relative to SA2 median household incomes, and removes the 20% profit margin criteria from the feasibility assessment. The intention of this scenario is to demonstrate the potentialities of alternative financing methods (such as a community housing provider) which are not necessarily relying on a profit across the development to remain viable. In essence it represents a break even proposition whilst delivering an affordable product relative to the population in a given area. Renewal Feasibility for Greater Sydney The outcome of the model is to test the development potential for two different types of buildings at two different build qualities, which equates to six different redevelopment scenarios. Figure 16 shows the redevelopment potential of existing strata blocks that were registered prior to 1990 to new walk up flat development. The diagram is separated into four parts to reflect the different traffic light categories of redevelopment potential, and an accumulation of all categories. The diagram shows that there are existing strata schemes across the metropolitan region that could feasibly be redeveloped, just as there are many schemes that are in the maybe and no categories. The diagrams indicate that there is potential for high quality redevelopments in the eastern suburbs area, north Sydney and Mosman, Manly and Cronulla, while there is the potential to redevelop at medium quality in the Canterbury area and scattered in small concentrations across large parts of Sydney. When the various categories are combined and layered (as depicted in the fourth panel in Figure 16 and Figure 17) it shows the relative concentration of schemes that could be viably redeveloped. Figure 18 shows the same layered redevelopment potential for the high-rise flat category of building and clearly indicates a much wider spread of areas of viability across Greater Sydney. Three distinct areas of either No and N/A categories emerge, located (i) along the train line corridor between Liverpool and Campbeltown; (ii) in Fairfield and Cabramatta; and (iii) around Wiley Park and Lakemba. The N/A category indicates areas where the construction costs of this form of building outweigh the existing property market in this category, while the No category indicates areas that would need to be built at very high densities (above 3.5:1 floor space ratio) to make a particular redevelopment viable. City Futures 2015 25

Figure 19 shows a combination of the previous 6 scenarios prioritised to reflect the relative likelihood of redevelopment occurring. Walk up flat categories, ranked high quality to basic, are given preference over high rise, also ranked from high quality to basic. Lots that are not listed as viable ( Yes ) in any category, but are listed as Maybe in any category, are assigned a Maybe category. Lots listed as No or N/A in all categories are assigned accordingly. Areas shown as purple therefore represent lots that could be redeveloped as walk up flats, which is generally considered permissible under current planning requirements. Green areas reflect lots that would need to allow construction of between 4-8 stories for redevelopment to be viable, whilst red and blue categories are locations where redevelopment is not currently viable under any scenario based on current market conditions. Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the distribution of feasible redevelopment scenarios aggregated at SA2 level, first as a proportion of the number of schemes in the SA2 and second as total numbers of schemes that are able to be redeveloped. This aggregation demonstrates the relative differences in the housing market that will or will not support renewal of existing strata schemes. High value locations close to the coast or on the harbour demonstrate the greatest potential for renewal of existing strata schemes. Figure 21, which shows the number of schemes that could be renewed by SA2, reflects both the number of existing scheme in the area combined with favourable local markets. As expected, many of the darker zones appear in eastern suburb and coastal areas, however there are a couple of notable exceptions. The Kogarah/Hurtsville area and in the northern near the Macquarie Park zone, both of which have been the focus of significant investment in the recent past. There are a number of general observations that can be made about the patterning of redevelopment potential across Greater Sydney. First, while there are areas that have greater or lesser concentrations of potential, there are blocks that could be feasibly redeveloped in almost all areas of Sydney. However, across all areas, renewal potential is patchy as demonstrated in the case study profiles in Appendix A, which show the feasibility outcomes at a smaller scale. This patchiness in all areas demonstrates that feasibility is highly contextual and will depend on the particularities of any given scheme, with current scheme size and land area influencing possibilities. Second, this model suggests that buildings that could feasibly be renewed are those where significant uplift in value can be achieved through a redevelopment process. Uplift in value can be derived from differences existing in the local property market between older, run down flats, compared with newer high quality flats. This condition mostly exists in high value locations, as demonstrated by Figure 16. Buildings can effectively be replaced by new development containing a similar number of units. In other locations where this difference in price point does not exist, there is little capacity to derive profit from quality change alone. In many parts of the city, the addition of unit numbers is required to make a renewal feasible. This difference is most effectively represented in Figure 19 in which the purple zones indicated replacement with buildings of similar size and scale, while the green zones indicate schemes that would need to significantly increase in size to be redeveloped. The purple effectively follows high value coastal or harbour front zones while the green shows areas where increases in density would be needed to create market conditions that would support renewal at scale. Again, this process is further demonstrated by Figure 22 and Table 25 which show that as scheme sizes increase, the possibility of a feasible renewal scenario at densities lower than the 2.5 FSR (8 stories) reduces. Affordability Scenarios Figure 23 shows the distribution of schemes that could feasibly be redeveloped at price points affordable to households on median incomes within the local SA2. With the exception of a few schemes in high income SA2s, there were few schemes that could be redeveloped and return a 20% profit to a private sector developer. Figure 24 shows the distribution of schemes that could be redeveloped at affordable price points when the 20% profit margin is removed from the calculations. This shows an increase in the number of City Futures 2015 26

schemes that could be renewed, however it is still below what may be the case under the current market conditions. There is no doubt that units in Sydney are being sold to home buyers (as opposed to investors), however, the implications of this analysis clearly point to the process of new apartment development being largely attracting a higher income purchaser compared to existing local demand potentials.. Affordability Scenario 2 does however offer some alternative provided there is a mechanism to intervene in the financing and delivery arrangements of new units. The difference between Table 26 and Table 27 shows that if a not-for-profit scenario was to underpin the renewal of strata, then up to 10% of existing schemes could be delivered at a break-even point that were affordable to households with median incomes in the local area. Further analysis of this affordability modelling will be pursued using more targeted income groups, such as first time buyers. City Futures 2015 27

Figure 16 Walk up flat viability by category City Futures 2015 28

Figure 17 Accumulated walk up viability Figure 18 Accumulated high rise flat viability City Futures 2015 29

Figure 19 Accumulated viability categories for all renewal scenarios Figure 20 Proportion of schemes that could be renewed by SA2 City Futures 2015 30

Figure 21 Number of schemes that could be renewed by SA2 Feasibility of Renewal According to Outcome 7000 6,175 Number of schemes 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 3,030 5,417 2,375 Renewal Outcome High Rise Flat Walk Up Flat Total Existing Schemes 1000 0 297 73 3 to 5 Lots 6 to 10 Lots 11 to 20 Lots 21 to 50 Lots 51 to 100 Lots 101+ Lots Existing Scheme Size Figure 22 Number of strata schemes able to be redeveloped by existing scheme size category City Futures 2015 31

Table 25 Renewal feasibility by outcome (percentages of row totals) Existing Scheme Size Yes-Walkup Yes-High Rise Maybe No/NA Total No. % No. % No. % No. % 3 to 5 Lots 1,194 39.4% 1,294 42.7% 210 6.9% 332 11.0% 3,030 6 to 10 Lots 854 13.8% 2,368 38.3% 1,315 21.3% 1,638 26.5% 6,175 11 to 20 Lots 393 7.3% 1,507 27.8% 1,317 24.3% 2,200 40.6% 5,417 21 to 50 Lots 136 5.7% 492 20.7% 396 16.7% 1,351 56.9% 2,375 51 to 100 Lots 21 7.1% 53 17.8% 36 12.1% 187 63.0% 297 101+ Lots 3 4.1% 15 20.5% 2 2.7% 53 72.6% 73 Total 2,601 15.0% 5,729 33.0% 3,276 18.9% 5,761 33.2% 17,367 City Futures 2015 32

Figure 23 Feasible renewal with median household income setting sale prices (affordability scenario 1) City Futures 2015 33